Make a scientific argument against eugenics that doesnt include muh morals

Home Forums General & off-topic Make a scientific argument against eugenics that doesnt include muh morals

Viewing 72 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #55043
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Make a scientific argument against eugenics that doesnt include muh morals

    • #55044
      Anonymous
      Guest

      If you’re selecting for a positive trait, you’re always inadvertently selecting for various negative ones, or against other positive ones.

      • #55090
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Why?

        Who chooses what traits you want in the next generation and woke af on what?
        The inapplicability of eugenics lays in the various answers people could give to these questions

        Select for whatever traits good or successful people tend to have, or whatever traits that bad or unsuccessful people don’t have.

        • #55092
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Why?
          Because properties of human behavior are interrelated. If you’re selecting for intelligence, you’re also selecting for mental illness. If you’re selecting for traits that very successful business people tend to have, you’re also selecting for sociopathy, and so on

          • #55093
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Just select against the latter lmao. If you breed a hundred smarties and 80 have mental illness, just breed the 20 that don’t. Next generation you might only have 79 schizos.

            • #55094
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >what are recessive genes

              • #55095
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Just keep doing it lmao, you’ll breed it out eventually. Don’t even need to do it one generation at a time; keep track of which descendants have maladaptive traits, and restrict the more mature breeding population going forward (even if they don’t exhibit those maladaptive traits).

                • #55099
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  You would lose massive parts of your population this way, so this would take ages to actually produce the society you’re aiming for. Genetic engineering is far superior, much more effective and not nearly as destructive.

                  • #55102
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >You would lose massive parts of your population this way, so this would take ages to actually produce the society you’re aiming for.
                    Just have the breeding population make more babies lmao. At a minimum of one child per year, women can produce about a dozen children during her better fertile years, and that’s not accounting for the possibility of natural tuplets, or fertility treatments.

                    >Genetic engineering is far superior, much more effective and not nearly as destructive.
                    "sis just directly edit the specific genes sis, even though we already know that human traits are highly polygenic sis lmao"

                    Gene editing is better for fixing the individuals, but it’ll be insufficient for raising the general baseline.

                    • #55298
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >but it’ll be insufficient for raising the general baseline
                      Not if we can edit the germ line. It’s risky business and the failures won’t be pretty. Imagine we fuck up a part of DNA that causes a person to generate contagious prions.

            • #55130
              Anonymous
              Guest

              You want to turn humans into dog breeds. Being schizo has some advantages, they are very creative

              • #55142
                Anonymous
                Guest

                The elites are already doing that though.

              • #55151
                Anonymous
                Guest

                There’s nothing wrong with practicing proper husbandry on ourselves; if it has given us strong working and specialist breeds of animals (revoltingly inferior aesthetic breeds aside) it can do the same for humans.

                Hell, you don’t even need to have human "breeds"; just select for the cream of the crop that are strong, intelligent, willful, and empathetic.

        • #55269
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >successful people
          are responsible for this

          • #55271
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Negroes don’t matter
            >Imperium Good
            >In a communist country
            >If you’re a scrotebrain

          • #55273
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I had this conversation in person once and immediately cut them off by frisbying my iphone like a skipping stone across a 100m gym hall and retrieving it unbroken.

            Happy memory. They’re actually pretty hardy nowadays.

            • #55275
              Anonymous
              Guest
              • #55276
                Anonymous
                Guest

                So which direction is this dynamic? Is apple slowing down their phones near new phone releases to sell more? Is this an artifact of marketing? Is someone gaming a search algorithm to change hits?

                • #55279
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Apple literally got caught slowing their phones down and designing them to fail before they need to. Hell they try to squash any attempts for repair shops.

                  But keep simping for corporate dicks

              • #55278
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Honestly kind of makes sense people would be getting a new phone and then bitching it doesn’t move at light speed. They are constantly releasing software updates, the phone itself is the real hardware they desperately want you to purchase

                • #55280
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  It’s common knowledge to not update old apple products unless you want them to spontaneously fail out of nowhere.

      • #55143
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >t scrotebrain

      • #55312
        Anonymous
        Guest

        FPBP

    • #55045
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Who chooses what traits you want in the next generation and woke af on what?
      The inapplicability of eugenics lays in the various answers people could give to these questions

      • #55048
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Who chooses what traits you want in the next generation and woke af on what?
        The free market unironically, succesful people will have access to better and more women, whether theyre succesful businessmen, athletes, surgeons or just chads. Meanwhile the talentless are doomed to be virgins and have their shit genes filtered from the earth

        • #55089
          Anonymous
          Guest

          What if successful people became successful becoz of some other not so important trait(like looks,height,skin colour,etc.) rather than intelligence.If u were to only select for intelligence only Ashkenazi garden gnomes,east Asians,above average whites and some South Asians,Latinos and Africans would be selected.But that ain’t happening,women almost always select men in the following order:looks,looks,status and that’s why white men are slaying every women be it East Asian ,black south Asian or even white women.

        • #55140
          Anonymous
          Guest

          You just argued against eugenics. Congrats.

          • #55207
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Not at all

        • #55156
          Anonymous
          Guest

          No, Capitalism has failed to do so, at least since the 1940s when standards of living skyrocketed among the poor. There is an extreme dysgenic trend among the world, face it, capitalism has failed you. Eugenics can pick up the slack though.

        • #55158
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Trusting the free market is like trusting evolution; you’re attributing needless (and dangerous) anthropic qualities to a blind, idiot process that will consume whatever you value in the process of optimization, if there’s even a slight decoupling between those values and maximizing utility.

          • #55159
            Anonymous
            Guest

            if you think the effects of idiocy are bad in the market then the last thing you should want is to give these very same brainlets control of government.

            • #55162
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >Corporation, no oversight or culpability besides investors and government

              At least a government has some theoretical mechanism for checking their power through the general populous. It’d be absurd to think that a corporate enviorment would be better.

              • #55163
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >through the general populous
                who are the issue in the market to begin with. all the stupid shit we see in the market is because most people are brainlets. it’s worse to empower them further with government.

                • #55167
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  You mean like Nestle stealing water, BP spilling oil then pushing it out to sea, banana republics, leaded gas, tobacco companies faking studies, murdering workers that try to unionize, using slave labour to make furniture, etc. Etc. Etc.

                  But yeah it’s just the consumers who are the real issue with the market. If we gave buisnesses free reign it would be great, they wouldn’t even need to pretend to follow legal procedures when ruining the life of the guy who figured out leaded gas was hurting people.

                  • #55172
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Don’t forget about the WHO misreading or at least pushing studies that didn’t even say what they told people (guess the name of it sufficed for their purpose) leading to smoking bans all over the world on false pretenses

                  • #55176
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >You mean like Nestle stealing water, BP spilling oil then pushing it out to sea, banana republics, leaded gas, tobacco companies faking studies, murdering workers that try to unionize, using slave labour to make furniture, etc. Etc. Etc.
                    none of these would be possible if the average consumer wasn’t a scrotebrain.

                    >But yeah it’s just the consumers who are the real issue with the market.
                    they are the ones who give these corporations their money so yeah.

                    >If we gave buisnesses free reign it would be great, they wouldn’t even need to pretend to follow legal procedures when ruining the life of the guy who figured out leaded gas was hurting people.
                    there is a concept called voting with your money, look how badly these consumers do with the market and you want to give them even more power so they can control you with government? yeah, no thanks.

                    • #55184
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      And how would the average consumer deal with that hmm? By having every single person needing to be fully educated on every single corporations in depth and often hidden practices. Many of which only came to light after government investigations that had enough marketing behind them to completely oblate it from the social memory.

                      When you get to a certain level you can’t just tell people not to buy from bad companies because in order to survive people need to buy something and it’s easy for corporations to own almost every single option you have access too. BP or exxon? It’s not like both haven’t spilled shit loads of oil all over the place and deliberately misinformed the populous about energy and pollution.

                      How can the average consumer get the information needed to evaluate a company without any mechanisms to force a company to divulge it? Then how are they supposed to fight the resources of multibillion dollar organizations to disseminate said information?

                      • #55188
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >And how would the average consumer deal with that hmm?
                        by not being this average.

                        >By having every single person needing to be fully educated on every single corporations in depth and often hidden practices.
                        not every single but enough, idk about you but i usually research nearly all my purchases.

                        >Many of which only came to light after government investigations that had enough marketing behind them to completely oblate it from the social memory.
                        plenty were just smart consumers raising the alarm. a lot of corps are quite obviously suss but idiots still flock to them like they flock to representatives in govt who do a lot more damage than these corporations.

                        >When you get to a certain level you can’t just tell people not to buy from bad companies because in order to survive people need to buy something and it’s easy for corporations to own almost every single option you have access too. BP or exxon?
                        standard oil became the monopoly it did from the robber barons the govt created. intelligent consumers know never to become fanboys and game their purchases to avoid creating monopolies.

                        >It’s not like both haven’t spilled shit loads of oil all over the place and deliberately misinformed the populous about energy and pollution.
                        you know k lay aka enron ceo was behind paris, right?

                        >How can the average consumer get the information needed to evaluate a company without any mechanisms to force a company to divulge it?
                        as a consumer you are able to demand transparency and boycott corps that don’t give you it. but it’s not like govt is very transparent anyway and neither does the average citizen demand it in any real capacity. more often than not they tend to dismiss criticism for their worship of cults of personality and political team.

                      • #55192
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You do know how robber barons originally came to be right? Without anti-monoploy laws it’s very easy for a company with a large amount of money to run all competition out of buisness and then be the only option.

                        Of you actually think the majority of illegal and immoral behaviour in corporate structures were determined by random citizens you are a brainlet. You need labs and funding to run assays to determine blood lead concentrations over time.

                        Also you keeping saying "don’t be average" like that will stop companies from dominating. Apple is chock full of anti-consumer practices and it doesn’t matter how many "above average" consumers avoid it, they are still one of the largest companies on the planet because of everyone else.

                        >Demand the monsanto food conglomerate is boycotted so we get transparency on their buisness practices in the chemical plants
                        >Starve because monsanto bought out all farms and undercut the prices on all other food stuff to remove all reasonable competition
                        >Starve

                        You bitch about the formation of "robber barons" as a result of government corruption. Which is hilarious because the people that corrupted the government were the corporations. It’s not going to magically change their buisness practices to be ethical or beneficial to wider society because the binding they corrupted is fully released.

                        Corporations have no direct impetus to keep their consumers healthy and happy on the long term. Sugar and tobacco industry practices are two of countless examples of that. Don’t even get started on all the chemicals dumped into people’s water. A large portion of the south’s water tables are literal poison to drink for the foreseeable future, the only reason they stopped is because of government intervention. It’s not like the people living next to the chemical/power plant can just boycott their power company and the drug company shipping stuff around the world.

                        But sure, bet they will treat you real nice.

                      • #55194
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The only difference between corporation and governments is that governments have more power. "but you can influence government via voting" is as silly as "you can influence corporations via your money".

                      • #55196
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Corporations capital comes from consumers buying their product which is not determined by national borders or the health and we’ll being of those consumers. We could be decaying mutant masses of suffering and it would all be good as long as we keep buying new hyper addictive Coke and watching Disney+ mind wipes in between shifts at the sulphur mines

                        A governments only source of capital is it’s people. If we aren’t productive and able to make healthy children then the government will perish quickly. A buisness doesn’t need that, they just need some consumers somewhere.

                        If you actually participate in local government it’s actually not that hard to influence them. On wider scales it’s harder but the government is, at the end of the day, composed of and ultimately answers to its population. There are problems yes but trying to equivocate the two is childish at best and malicious shilling at worst.

                        tl;dr a company is only beholden to shareholders while a government is beholden to citizens

                      • #55201
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >We could be decaying mutant masses of suffering and it would all be good as long as we keep buying new hyper addictive Coke and watching Disney+ mind wipes in between shifts at the sulphur mines
                        Why not skip the middleman and just pour the cola into the sea? If you think that there is a problem to get rid of it, then destroying it is much quicker.
                        >sulphur mines
                        Government is perfectly able to send you to sulfur mines and many governments in fact did that. If working at sulphur mines is the wealth you create, then keeping you alive to work at them is perfectly enough.
                        >if you actually participate in local government it’s actually not that hard to influence them.
                        Just like you probably can influence the local small store, but nothing more than that.

                      • #55198
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >You do know how robber barons originally came to be right?
                        as i said they were a product of govt favoritism that enabled them to corner the market.
                        https://fee.org/articles/the-robber-barons-and-the-real-gilded-age/

                        >Without anti-monoploy laws it’s very easy for a company with a large amount of money to run all competition out of buisness and then be the only option.
                        without government favoring one competitor it is very difficult for a monopoly to form unless the product they offer is vastly cheaper and better than the alternatives.

                        >Of you actually think the majority of illegal and immoral behaviour in corporate structures were determined by random citizens you are a brainlet.
                        you’re in no position to call me a brainlet when you fail at basic reading comprehension like this. I never said the consumers determine this activity, only that they enable it with their spending.

                        >You need labs and funding to run assays to determine blood lead concentrations over time.
                        private labs can do this. you can request lead serology testing.

                        >Apple is chock full of anti-consumer practices and it doesn’t matter how many "above average" consumers avoid it, they are still one of the largest companies on the planet because of everyone else.
                        >because of everyone else
                        exactly my point, this average is freaking stupid.

                        >Starve because monsanto bought out all farms and undercut the prices on all other food stuff to remove all reasonable competition
                        they never would’ve established themselves if Pol weren’t idiots and read the print on their seeds.

                        1/2

                      • #55202
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        *ppl

                      • #55212
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Natural monopolies exist independent of any government. Monopolies in general are very easy to make if you have the resources to buy out the competition which any leader in whatever big ticket industry is in fashion can gain. The people who corrupted the government are buisnesses, they can and will corrupt any structure for profit.

                        No one normally orders blood lead serology tests. Few private entities are motivated to follow through with that or have the training to. What private entity could possibly make money just testing people’s blood lead generally?

                        You do realize that the water companies are in charge of the purity of all water right? Not ensuring that every company is following the proper protocols so unknown chemical X doesn’t spill into the water table. Trying to point to an instance where a private entity deliberately circumvents rules in place to prevent the general public from getting poisoned doesn’t make your case sound good.

                        You do realize how much worse it is that you want people to only have the ability to "enable" the ruling powers choices than have any fundamental control over it yes? You are saying we shouldn’t have a boot on our hand but should instead kneel down and have it directly on our neck instead.

                      • #55217
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Natural monopolies exist independent of any government.
                        only on the condition of market saturation of idiocy or genuinely being significantly better than the alternatives.

                        >Monopolies in general are very easy to make if you have the resources to buy out the competition
                        in order to buy them out you need to have more money than they are worth and they have to be convinced there it is better to sell themselves than compete in the market. this isn’t as easy as you make it seem.

                        >The people who corrupted the government are buisnesses,
                        and yet you advocate for something so easily corruptible. it is much easier to buy out politicians than become a monopoly in a truly free market.

                        >You do realize that the water companies are in charge of the purity of all water right?
                        https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/public/water_quality.html

                        >Trying to point to an instance where a private entity deliberately circumvents rules in place to prevent the general public from getting poisoned doesn’t make your case sound good.
                        except i never made the argument to trust the corps, just that you misplace trust in government which itself is a monopoly with even more power than a conventional corp.

                        >You do realize how much worse it is that you want people to only have the ability to "enable" the ruling powers choices than have any fundamental control over it yes?
                        that is what you’re doings with government. i am saying everything should be restricted to market interaction and the government should only exist to protect your individual rights.

                      • #55199
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >You do know how robber barons originally came to be right?
                        as i said they were a product of govt favoritism that enabled them to corner the market.
                        https://fee.org/articles/the-robber-barons-and-the-real-gilded-age/

                        >Without anti-monoploy laws it’s very easy for a company with a large amount of money to run all competition out of buisness and then be the only option.
                        without government favoring one competitor it is very difficult for a monopoly to form unless the product they offer is vastly cheaper and better than the alternatives.

                        >Of you actually think the majority of illegal and immoral behaviour in corporate structures were determined by random citizens you are a brainlet.
                        you’re in no position to call me a brainlet when you fail at basic reading comprehension like this. I never said the consumers determine this activity, only that they enable it with their spending.

                        >You need labs and funding to run assays to determine blood lead concentrations over time.
                        private labs can do this. you can request lead serology testing.

                        >Apple is chock full of anti-consumer practices and it doesn’t matter how many "above average" consumers avoid it, they are still one of the largest companies on the planet because of everyone else.
                        >because of everyone else
                        exactly my point, this average is freaking stupid.

                        >Starve because monsanto bought out all farms and undercut the prices on all other food stuff to remove all reasonable competition
                        they never would’ve established themselves if Pol weren’t idiots and read the print on their seeds.

                        1/2

                        >Which is hilarious because the people that corrupted the government were the corporations
                        and who voted in the govt who was corrupted? the very people you trust.

                        >Corporations have no direct impetus to keep their consumers healthy and happy on the long term.
                        i never said to trust the corps, did i? the point is given how stupid the average consumer is the last thing i’d want is to give them more power with govt. the govt ends up in the hands of corps anyway as you rightly point out. but instead of their power being restricted to the market they also have govt to control me further.

                        >for the foreseeable future
                        >the only reason they stopped
                        which is it? iirc the water supply is a public facility so the fact they let it drag on this long only highlights govt failure.

                        >It’s not like the people living next to the chemical/power plant can just boycott their power company and the drug company shipping stuff around the world.
                        no one is forced to live next to it. you can always move. will it mean making a sacrifice? sure, but it’s better than sacrificing health.

                        2/2

                      • #55213
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Natural monopolies exist independent of any government. Monopolies in general are very easy to make if you have the resources to buy out the competition which any leader in whatever big ticket industry is in fashion can gain. The people who corrupted the government are buisnesses, they can and will corrupt any structure for profit.

                        No one normally orders blood lead serology tests. Few private entities are motivated to follow through with that or have the training to. What private entity could possibly make money just testing people’s blood lead generally?

                        You do realize that the water companies are in charge of the purity of all water right? Not ensuring that every company is following the proper protocols so unknown chemical X doesn’t spill into the water table. Trying to point to an instance where a private entity deliberately circumvents rules in place to prevent the general public from getting poisoned doesn’t make your case sound good.

                        You do realize how much worse it is that you want people to only have the ability to "enable" the ruling powers choices than have any fundamental control over it yes? You are saying we shouldn’t have a boot on our hand but should instead kneel down and have it directly on our neck instead.

                        You seem to have a fundamental disconnect between the idea of what obligations a government and a corporation has. A government is not considered successful if it’s citizens are starving and their land is corrupted. A buisness on the other hand can be considered wildly successful just as long as it keeps making money regardless of the health and well being of the people that buy their products. They can sell us highly addictive products to practically enslave sections of the population into supporting them. There is a reason all the old time shit had cocaine, meth, and opium in it.

                        You are literally arguing for a system with even less regulation on the people ruling, because there will always be people ruling, on the premise that without a government it will be harder for them to oppress anyone. While also saying that people can just "move away" from anything the company decides to ruin regardless of how long they’ve lived there, the importance of the land, their capability to move, or even just basic preservation of the world. They will just gain access to a new suite of tools to oppress people. But I guess we can think about that before our corporate mandated butt freaking from our disney paramilitary organization for hiding resources.

                        as another anon pointed out, for public companies yes.

                        […]
                        you can only purchase from public companies. enough shares aren’t outrageously overpriced. if enough people were smart enough it would happen for enough issues.

                        It’s almost as though if every person banded together to buy shares on buisnesses together we could ensure companies wouldn’t abuse their power. But we would need to ensure that we take into account everyones views and issues and ensure we have enough money to do it. Maybe if we had some sort of method of voting and centralizing resource distribution so we can ensure important companies don’t gain too much power and damn we made a government with taxes again.

                        This isn’t even getting into the fact that research is heavily funded by the government. No buisness will find research into obscure bacterial systems with no pay off, but guess what that got us? freaking CRISPR.

                      • #55215
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >A government is not considered successful if it’s citizens are starving and their land is corrupted.
                        USSR, Maoist China existed for many decades and North Korea exists now. You can also add all the African governments. Looks like ""not being considered" something does not impact their survival.

                      • #55218
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >You seem to have a fundamental disconnect between the idea of what obligations a government and a corporation has.
                        nope, you just don’t realize government is a corporation that authorized itself and provides services with a monopoly on the legal system.

                        >A government is not considered successful if it’s
                        normative claims are irrelevant as this anon

                        >A government is not considered successful if it’s citizens are starving and their land is corrupted.
                        USSR, Maoist China existed for many decades and North Korea exists now. You can also add all the African governments. Looks like ""not being considered" something does not impact their survival.

                        pts out. a government like a corporation is only as successful as as its continued operation and scope.

                        >You are literally arguing for a system with even less regulation on the people ruling
                        quite the opposite actually. i’m arguing against them having even more power through government. you acknowledge how corruptible govt is and it’s inevitably going to fall into the hands of corps yet you still argue for govt. i would really rethink your position.

                        >on the premise that without a government it will be harder for them to oppress anyone.
                        i am not arguing for no govt. just very limited to the defense of individual rights and nothing more.

                        1/2

                      • #55219
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >You seem to have a fundamental disconnect between the idea of what obligations a government and a corporation has.
                        nope, you just don’t realize government is a corporation that authorized itself and provides services with a monopoly on the legal system.

                        >A government is not considered successful if it’s
                        normative claims are irrelevant as this anon […] pts out. a government like a corporation is only as successful as as its continued operation and scope.

                        >You are literally arguing for a system with even less regulation on the people ruling
                        quite the opposite actually. i’m arguing against them having even more power through government. you acknowledge how corruptible govt is and it’s inevitably going to fall into the hands of corps yet you still argue for govt. i would really rethink your position.

                        >on the premise that without a government it will be harder for them to oppress anyone.
                        i am not arguing for no govt. just very limited to the defense of individual rights and nothing more.

                        1/2

                        >that people can just "move away" from anything the company decides to ruin regardless of how long they’ve lived there
                        i moved away from war and that was thanks to govt not corps.

                        >They will just gain access to a new suite of tools to oppress people.
                        you do realize there is only so many chem plants that are needed before they become a huge cost and they make no profit? corps also need to sell goods and keep their workers happy so they don’t go to the competitors. you really don’t have much of a grasp on how business seems to operate.

                        >It’s almost as though if every person banded together
                        i wouldn’t trust the brainlets in this society with what you are about to propose.

                        >Maybe if we had some sort of method of voting and centralizing resource distribution so we can ensure important companies don’t gain too much power and damn we made a government with taxes again.
                        just to sell the country out to corps again because the avg citizen is scrotebrained. again we reach the same problem.

                        >This isn’t even getting into the fact that research is heavily funded by the government.
                        private too and it’s more cost effective and doesn’t just do vanity and military projects. what govt does for 100 bucks private does for 1.

                        >No buisness will find research into obscure bacterial systems with no pay off, but guess what that got us? freaking CRISPR.
                        if you only knew how involved researchers are in private industry, as for this example. she went on to commercialize it. if it were a diff market she could’ve found an venture cap easy.
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Doudna
                        >Doudna has co-founded Caribou, a company to commercialize CRISPR technology.[45] She is also a cofounder of Scribe Therapeutics which pioneered CasX, a more compact, next-generation Cas9 which can efficiently cut DNA.[46]

                        2/2

                      • #55195
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >as a consumer you are able to demand transparency and boycott corps that don’t give you it. but it’s not like govt is very transparent anyway and neither does the average citizen demand it in any real capacity. more often than not they tend to dismiss criticism for their worship of cults of personality and political team.

                        Couldn’t you as well just get shares to have an actual say in the company as well as contacting them about the problem you are having?

                      • #55197
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >All companies are public
                        >The average person can afford enough shares of a given company to influence policy
                        >This can be repeated for every single company on the planet for every single issue

                      • #55214
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        No but with enough sway you could either buy up the companies that are doing something wrong or in time I guess force them into bankruptcy and buy up their assets on the cheap

                        So you are basically saying that "voting with your wallet" doesn’t work then because it would just be an average person doing something which couldn’t possibly make an impact but what about a two-pronged approach by a whole lot of "average people" that both decide not only not to buy the companies product but also to buy a shitload of shares so not only would they in time potentially actually getting something to say but also by decreasing profit (not necessarily as they likely never would have made the money in the first place but let’s just say they would have) it would put pressure from other shareholders and then giving a small nudge by providing options for what they could do better might be enough to get the ball rolling in time.

                        Why would voting with the wallet only mean a negative i.e. subtracting potential money from the company, distributor, truck company and retailer and not a positive i.e. adding money through shares while also actually giving you even more of a voice than not buying AND not voicing the reason for why doing so in the first place any loss would probably just be shifted onto the remaining consumers or the employees if it’s big enough to be noticed at all.

                        I know you are being sarcastic but yes the average person could actually kind of do something like that provided that they are enough people ’cause I guess you’re saying that the average person lack the necessary funds in the first place.

                      • #55200
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        as another anon pointed out, for public companies yes.

                        >All companies are public
                        >The average person can afford enough shares of a given company to influence policy
                        >This can be repeated for every single company on the planet for every single issue

                        you can only purchase from public companies. enough shares aren’t outrageously overpriced. if enough people were smart enough it would happen for enough issues.

            • #55168
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Who said anything about democracy?

        • #55208
          Anonymous
          Guest

          > successful people will have access to better and more women
          That’s not eugenics. That’s natural selection.

          The main problem with eugenics is the goal. Why do it? To make a better society? You’re going to turn society into a cross between The Purge and The Handmaiden’s Tale in order to improve it?

          • #55210
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >You’re going to turn society into a cross between The Purge and The Handmaiden’s Tale in order to improve it?
            People who need to make reference to how bad something can be by drawing on popular media should be sterilized for one.

        • #55233
          Anonymous
          Guest

          The only way to do that is create a giant sperm/egg bank and force all donors to take iq tests.

        • #55320
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >The free market unironically
          It doesn’t look like it has done a good job until now. Society looks more and more riddled with degenerates

      • #55049
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Intelligence, woke af on an IQ test.

        • #55052
          Anonymous
          Guest

          high IQ doesnt mean you’ll be succesful

          • #55053
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Someone clearly doesn’t understand statistics.

          • #55058
            Anonymous
            Guest

            many times it is strongly correlated with success tho

          • #55324
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Although higher IQ does not promise success, it does increase the chance of success.

        • #55077
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Yikes! I would select for big booba blonde blue eyes.

          • #55081
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Blonde and blue eyes is ugly
            Black/dark brown hair and green eyes is the way

            • #55082
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Diversity is our strength.
              Intelligence is not well understood, i would only do minor cosmetic changes (boobs, skin color) or correct obvious genetic diseases. I would not try to make high IQ or fast runners or something, big chance of fuckup.

              • #55083
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Yeah I agree
                Just think blonde blue eyes is overrated

      • #55107
        Anonymous
        Guest

        this

        morals are holding humanity back.

        Yes. Shite morals are.

        Intelligence, woke af on an IQ test.

        scrotebrain tier

      • #55122
        Anonymous
        Guest

        same logic applies to every big social program

      • #55314
        Anonymous
        Guest

        girls: small frame with huge tits, blonde eyes and blue hair
        men: high IQ, big frame

    • #55046
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Make a scientific argument against morals that doesn’t include
      >muh eugenics

    • #55051
      Anonymous
      Guest

      currently we have state funded dysgenics through the welfare system.
      I’d quite like us not to start by not having demonstrably dysgenic incentive schemes.

      • #55224
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Nature does a good enough job on its own. Why try to force her hand?

        Which also means that people who are high iq, family oriented and moral are becoming their own separate caste

    • #55054
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Undecided ideals to rule eugenics
      >Competitiveness will drive society which will lead to contentness as a value to go extinct which means less happiness

    • #55055
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Fund state mandated GFs for all high IQ individuals.

      • #55297
        Anonymous
        Guest

        China unironically does this.

    • #55056
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Humans are bad at eugenics. See: dog breeds.
      In a few centuries, the average human would be 9 feet tall, heterochromic, with a 12" cock, but would also suffer from hip dysplasia and a dozen other genetic diseases.

      • #55059
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The commercial working breeds are fine, it’s the pet trade raised for aesthetics that is bonked up, select for broad performance traits.

        • #55066
          Anonymous
          Guest

          And you think they’d breed humans for anything other than aesthetics?

          • #55067
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I’m saying there is more than one way to run it, and we need safeguards in place to avoid negative patterns.

            • #55282
              Anonymous
              Guest

              the only way to prevent eugenic abuse is to not employ eugenics.

              a tool, once utilized, cannot be made immune to abuse.

              • #55283
                Anonymous
                Guest

                So how many nukings have occurred outside of testing purposes?

                • #55285
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >tfw no mutually assured genetic distruction

                • #55287
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  2?

                  • #55288
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >2?
                    >He doesn’t know

                    • #55289
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      I don’t, clearly.

                      enlighten me.

                      • #55290
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I mean TECHNICALLY they weren’t "nukes" since they didn’t use fissile material, but still.

                      • #55291
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        didn’t know there was a distinction between nuclear weapons and, I guess, atomic weapons?

          • #55085
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >ominous they

            • #55108
              Anonymous
              Guest

              ((()))

        • #55327
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >what are german shepherds
          >prone to a host of terrible diseases from poor breeding
          >hurrworkdoggood medoyoojeniks

    • #55057
      Anonymous
      Guest

      If your goal is to improve public health and productivity there are much cheaper easier ways to do it. Eugenics takes a generation to have any effect, can only eliminate genetic diseases, and requires totalitarian police state levels of monitoring and control. China’s one-child policy was only partially effective and that’s a country that treats human rights like a joke. A wide scale eugenics program would be much harder than that to pull off.

      All the money would be much better spent regulating the fast food industry, improving education, funding hospitals, reducing air pollution, replacing lead pipes, etc. This would have a bigger effect than eugenics, almost immidietly, and people would be happy about it.

      • #55060
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I was thinking more of natural selection type of eugenics like animals have. If you have no talent/skill to provide for yourself, you starve

      • #55109
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Don’t talk sense 🙂 to these trogs

    • #55061
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What are the Mormons doing right? why are their numbers increasing and their average IQ increasing with every generation?

    • #55062
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Eugenics are obsolete techniques. Via CRISPR, retrovirusis and other tools for genetic engineering we can accomplish far more in a single generation.

      • #55063
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Eugenics will actually work though, relying on gene editing is just a recipe for chaos.

        • #55088
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Lulu and Nana want a talk with you. We already bred super-dogs and smarter mices thanks to genetic engineering and it is quite likely that these first designer babies will also be a bit smarter than the common chinese. Not much but the modifications done to the CCR5 allell can enhance the learning capability of the modified.

          • #55096
            Anonymous
            Guest

            at one single point but it does not work with broadscale effects over multiple generations.
            Anon I look at bull progeny data they tried systems just woke af on genomic scores and they work a while but eventually collapse.
            the best systems and fastest genetic progress were made by combining normal trait measurements from progeny tested for broad traits with these genomic scores.
            So the conclusions I drew from this are that eugenics will work in isolation, gene editing will not but it can complement a eugenics programme.

            • #55113
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >but it does not work with broadscale effects over multiple generations.
              Gene drive?

              • #55116
                Anonymous
                Guest

                So what it promotes some genes at the expense of others, will its phenotype actually be better?

      • #55064
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The primary issue with genetic engineering techniques and traditional breeding methods is the range of selection and a more apt plan to go forwards with eugenics would be a combination of direct gene alteration and a soft widespread selection

        • #55114
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Genetic engineering can add synthetic biology and cross-species traits in the template and its modifications can be done within one generation. Eugenics is limited in scale, power and time.

          • #55117
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I’m fully aware of the theoretical alterations we can make but again the issue is scale of selection with genetic engineering you firstly need to identify and properly understand the genes you are altering and the specific purpose behind them and to what degree you are changing them, for example you could upregulate follistatin or introduce an entirely different gene to do this on a large scale you would need to not only understand the gene in question but also it’s affects on the wider biochemistry where’s the great benefit of traditional breeding is the fact it’s macroscale and generally and you don’t need to fully understand the genes that are responsible for the trait you are selecting for which is a great boon to have given our current understanding.

      • #55135
        Anonymous
        Guest

        But with a virus there isn’t any going back but then again I guess you could argue that goes for other types of gene editing as well

        Eugenics will actually work though, relying on gene editing is just a recipe for chaos.

        Just kind of sounds like tomato – tomato

        What is the difference between selecting and breeding for desirable traits effectively in a sense choosing the genes for the offspring and choosing between what should and shouldn’t be in the genome in a sterile regular lab environment?

        If your goal is to improve public health and productivity there are much cheaper easier ways to do it. Eugenics takes a generation to have any effect, can only eliminate genetic diseases, and requires totalitarian police state levels of monitoring and control. China’s one-child policy was only partially effective and that’s a country that treats human rights like a joke. A wide scale eugenics program would be much harder than that to pull off.

        All the money would be much better spent regulating the fast food industry, improving education, funding hospitals, reducing air pollution, replacing lead pipes, etc. This would have a bigger effect than eugenics, almost immidietly, and people would be happy about it.

        How would it take one generation seeing as you would likely have multiple generations alive at the same time?

        You want to turn humans into dog breeds. Being schizo has some advantages, they are very creative

        Is it really that much of a difference other than the fact that humans wanting to feel special, why would it work differently in regards to humans as opposed to dogs.

        Not only schizos, just look up medicine that exists for both dogs and humans, you in fact get a more honest unfiltered version if you look up the medicine for the dog/animal than the human.

        For example look up "p syringe" for humans and it says birth control and different things making it not sounding so bad and look it up for dogs and it says (reversible) chemical castration which is more like what it actually is and the dog version actually said more what it actually is and how it works in a sense.

        Intelligence, woke af on an IQ test.

        Not a bad idea but then again wouldn’t different traits be preferable in various situations to perform different functions in society kind of how different kind of breeds of dogs are used for different types of things

    • #55068
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      not at all, men exercised considerable control over who women could reproduce with

    • #55069
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Humans aren’t psychic or time travelers, traits that seem useless or disadvantageous now may be useful thousands of years in the future. Myopia was not advantageous +3000yrs ago when the average person was still a hunter/forager/nomad. Now Myopia is useful because it’s been correlated to increased IQ.

      But your shortsighted mindset would have eliminated those with Myopia because they weren’t good. Your shortsightedness would have eliminated a trait that would now be deemed useful.

      • #55071
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Now Myopia is useful because it’s been correlated to increased IQ.
        Isn’t this backwards reasoning? Couldn’t the increased IQ happen without causing Myopia? In any cause, sauce pls.

        • #55073
          Anonymous
          Guest

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5382686/

          >Twin participants with high IQ (highest quartile) were one and a half times more likely to be myopic, comparable to others18,26. IQ alone explained 1.5% of refractive error variance and remained a significant predictor when adjusted for educational attainment, contrary to others38. In twin modeling both traits were heritable (refractive error 85%, IQ 47%), and genetic factors explained the majority (78%) of the phenotypic correlation (r=0.12) between IQ and refractive error. Reciprocal genome-wide PRS significantly predicted the variance of both refractive error (~1%) and IQ (~0.4%). These analyses provide evidence for genetic correlation between myopia and IQ, with shared genetic factors underlying a small proportion of variance in both traits.

          • #55086
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Shit. My dad and I both have really bad eyesight and my dads very intelligent.
            Thought myopia was just getting more common in general because glasses now available and didn’t know was linked with IQ.

            • #55100
              Anonymous
              Guest

              The australians found a major link between eyesight and how much time you spent in bright environments, they solved ther problem by having kids go outside to play more often

          • #55098
            Anonymous
            Guest

            So since the retinal cells are a literal part of the brain, there is a link between their function and neurones in the brain?

          • #55323
            Anonymous
            Guest

            High IQ and myopia don’t correlate with each other.
            They correlate with staying indoors or in an urban environment.
            You can stop your kids from developing it by just letting them play outside.

      • #55078
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Now Myopia is useful because it’s been correlated to increased IQ.
        correlation does not imply causation
        arguably those with myopia in other areas would have been purged as maladaptive while those in professions that didn’t penalise myopia would tend to be more intellectually demanding?

        • #55084
          Anonymous
          Guest

          You read

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5382686/

          >Twin participants with high IQ (highest quartile) were one and a half times more likely to be myopic, comparable to others18,26. IQ alone explained 1.5% of refractive error variance and remained a significant predictor when adjusted for educational attainment, contrary to others38. In twin modeling both traits were heritable (refractive error 85%, IQ 47%), and genetic factors explained the majority (78%) of the phenotypic correlation (r=0.12) between IQ and refractive error. Reciprocal genome-wide PRS significantly predicted the variance of both refractive error (~1%) and IQ (~0.4%). These analyses provide evidence for genetic correlation between myopia and IQ, with shared genetic factors underlying a small proportion of variance in both traits.

        • #55115
          Anonymous
          Guest

          You dont know. You want to modify dna without understanding the implications. Sometimes correlation implies causation.

      • #55087
        Anonymous
        Guest

        It’s all about net gain. So if you remove some traits from the pool that cause benefits, you can just compensate by adding traits to the pool that cause the same benefits. There are plenty of alleles that cause higher intelligence with no downsides.

        • #55105
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >It’s all about net gain.
          Do you have a crystal ball that allows you to min-max that net gain anon? I used the Myopia IQ correlation and it’s utility between different time periods to illustrate the issue with eugenics. It doesn’t just stop at that example.

          >So if you remove some traits from the pool that cause benefits, you can just compensate by adding traits to the pool that cause the same benefits.

          So what trait(s) can you trade in to make up the difference for the following trait below that heavily decreases cancer and diabetes by reducing growth hormone and dna breakage?

          https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/defective-growth-gene-in-dwarfism/

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laron_syndrome

          Obviously I’m not expecting everyone to want to become dwarfs. But this compensation position isn’t going to always work equally across the board.

      • #55124
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I take this view as the traits selected are liable to be what is perceived as advantageous at the time, not necessarily advantageous later. It’s the usual error of assuming survival of the fittest means the best in our eyes instead of the best suited for the environment.

        What

        Genetic drift. Reduced genetic diversity make populations less robust and more vulnerable to extinction. Traits that are perceived to negative now may be essential in 3,000 years.

        said. Look at how we aren’t sure why some people can shrug off covid symptoms even with comorbidities while others get wholloped by it. Now imagine a situation with a virulent and aggressive virus which happens to be drastically less lethal to people with a certain genetic mutation you got rid of. We needn’t look to some hollywood morality tale for this possibility given sickle cell anemia carrier’s resistance against malaria.

        It’s a childish fantasy to imagine eugenics producing some fantastical 6 foot 6 beautiful chad race. Just use eugenics to get rid of the extremely negative traits like down syndrome, but of course human beings are too autistic to be able to stop themselves from going excessive.

        • #55127
          Anonymous
          Guest

          You do know how down syndrome works right?

      • #55225
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Aren’t you making the case against natural selection too? Those people 3000ya who had no knowledge of myopia or IQ were selecting against those who had that condition (eg exiling someone who couldn’t hunt well) and hurting themselves in the long run as far as we are concerned in the now. That’s as natural as human selection can be, yet that’s a scenario you’re putting forth to argue against artificial selection.

      • #55325
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Genetic drift. Reduced genetic diversity make populations less robust and more vulnerable to extinction. Traits that are perceived to negative now may be essential in 3,000 years.

        Why do you scrotebrained scrotes always act like genetics can only be irreversibly altered once? Genetic code can be manipulated to BOTH turn off and on traits, so if we notice in 3000 years that a previously useless trait has been turned off, you turn it back on. We can also keep a population of "natural humans" around that is composed of people like you who don’t want to be part of the eugenics program, so that even in worst case scenario we have access to the base genetics to fix possible mistakes.

        All your fears can be easily avoided if you use your head for just a moment.

    • #55070
      Anonymous
      Guest

      if you view dog breeds as a result of eugenics, that should be a strong enough argument against it. See: golden retrievers only living for 10-12 years while wolves live up to 30 easily. No one selected for shorter lifespans, but that’s what they got.

      • #55080
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >while wolves live up to 30 easily
        Where the hell did you read that? wolves in yellowstone are lucky if they can make it to 7 years old.

    • #55074
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Genetic drift. Reduced genetic diversity make populations less robust and more vulnerable to extinction. Traits that are perceived to negative now may be essential in 3,000 years.

      • #55110
        Anonymous
        Guest

        baased

      • #55180
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Good job human

      • #55311
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Reduced genetic diversity make populations less robust and more vulnerable to extinction
        Genetic diversity is often overstated as to how valuable it is. Firstly there’s absolutely no guidelines for what is a suitable level of genetic diversity is. Secondly I would much rather through whatever method to have a population with a small amount of genetic diversity but a much better immune system and intelligence than I would with a population with lot of genetic diversity but there immune system and intelligence is incredibly mediocre. I wish people would stop pretending that genetic diversity is incredibly useful. It’s only useful for anomalistic scenarios.
        >Traits that are perceived to negative now may be essential in 3,000 years.
        We’re just as likely to not have those traits with or without gene editing. In fact I would argue gene editing would allow us to adapt to the times a lot more quickly. This is literally an argument for gene editing and eugenics, not against them.

    • #55075
      Anonymous
      Guest

      People don’t know what good genes are. They could inadvertently kill off humanity. Let natural selection run its course

    • #55076
      Anonymous
      Guest

      test

    • #55091
      Anonymous
      Guest

      i cannot

    • #55097
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Your question is nonsensical because the term eugenics already contains moral judgement.

      • #55254
        Anonymous
        Guest

        this

    • #55101
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Decentralized eugenics is sexual selection, which has actually been doing us a lot of good. But you can make a strong political against eugenics commanded by a centralized authority. The corrupted vision of a body with that much power will lead us off a genetic cliff. A world with no autists for example would cease technological innovation, we would be stuck in big global problems with no geniuses to work through them. Just the alligators outside would out smart us neurotypicals and kill us off. Fatal conceit is the name of this idea.

      • #55103
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >us neurotypicals
        Yeah, okay autist, you’re not fooling anyone. High functioning savants doesn’t mean we need to suffer the presence of social (and literal) scrotebrains.

        • #55119
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Yes we do because those scrotebrains get us the best shit. And this is just one point about intelligence, the fatal conceit extends beyond to all traits you commit eugenic processes on.

          • #55150
            Anonymous
            Guest

            No, they don’t; every so often a savant comes along and makes a breakthrough, but the vast majority of progress has come from intelligent and entirely normal people who DON’T flap their hands and screech whenever they get upset.

            Autism as a whole is a strict maladaption and deserves to be extirpated.

      • #55104
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >neurotypical
        >on /sci

      • #55120
        Anonymous
        Guest

        If you just listed high benefits to a trait why do you think it would be purged?

        • #55148
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Because government fucks up, that is what it does. Any centralized authority given this kind of power will, and when it does it fucks up hard.

          • #55222
            Anonymous
            Guest

            So your entire argument against eugenics would be is just potential misuse?

      • #55255
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >implying the average autist amounts to anything beyond shit posting on LULZ

    • #55106
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Basic evolution.
      Genetic variation enhances species viability to withstand shocks.
      Eugenics implies a narrow parameter of genetic traits as being superior without fully comprehending the complexity of genetic interaction, inheritance and expression in different environments

    • #55111
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The gene for Cystic Fibrosis is recessive, it also has a fairly high incidence in populations.
      we could systematically remove it via gene editing or selection and reduce a lot of suffering.
      However in its heterozygous form it is associated with resistance to Tuberculosis infection.
      And Tuberculosis is notably making a comeback due to growing antibiotic resistance and international travel.
      How many such similar cases are there?

    • #55118
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The question you pose is a moral one you tard.

      • #55152
        Anonymous
        Guest

        ngmi

    • #55121
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Make a scientific argument for eugenics that doesn’t include muh morals. Everything is motivated by morals you adolescent edgelord.

      • #55313
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Everything is motivated by morals you adolescent edgelord.
        Everyone is incredibly selfish and immoral. Humans simply care about what is convenient and whether or not that is socially acceptable.

        • #55315
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Speak for yourself.

          Anyway your position makes no sense. There is no scientific theory for which you can decide what to do with it woke af only on "scientific" arguments. The application of science to human endeavours requires that humans decide a purpose for the tools that they have available to them. The "purpose" of a tool is an entirely human construction, has no basis in science, and is woke af on the morals/value system that govern society.

    • #55123
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There’s nothing wrong with eugenics, but every attempt so far has been misdirected and forced leading to a poisoning of the well
      Nobody is ever going to even touch that shit with a 10ft pole after hitler the scrotebrain decided to do a genicide woke af on the idea

      • #55141
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The scandis had actual eugenics programmes that reduced the rate of birth defects and mental instability over the decades it has been in operation.

    • #55125
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There are no arguments for or against eugenics if you don’t include morals. Is-ought problem, you know.

    • #55126
      Anonymous
      Guest

      muh freedom

    • #55129
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >a scientific argument against eugenics
      A system cannot contain a complete representation of itself.

    • #55131
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Am I the one deciding what is desirable and what isn’t?

      • #55134
        Anonymous
        Guest

        No

        • #55136
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It still makes sense but if I’m not on there then (other than fuck you in that case) why would I ever care about doing anything or even consider participating in your society (because if I wouldn’t be considered then I would in fact not be a part of it) at any level?

          • #55137
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I dont know what you mean. You can be part of society, i meant you wont be in charge of guiding the eugenics program. Its all top-down

            • #55138
              Anonymous
              Guest

              That’s one thing I guess but still why would someone participate without any guarantee of being on the list so to speak?

              • #55139
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >but still why would someone participate without any guarantee of being on the list so to speak?
                You could try to basically bribe people into going along ie you have bad gene, so let us neuter you and we give you 10000 bucks, no other strings attached. In practice it wouldn’t work for anything other than a very mild(and consequently slow and somewhat infective) eugenics program.

                • #55144
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  No other strings attached while mentioning the biggest freakin’ string that exists.

                  Wouldn’t a bullet in the head be a more humane proposition yes?

                  • #55145
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Brown women love being bleached. They want kids yet they don’t want to reproduce.

                  • #55146
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    That is why I said no other. Honestly I think some level of gene editing and selection will become commonplace on humans in the next couple of decades, at least within 1st world countries’ middle to upper class(embryo screening is already a thing, so there is some precedent for that already).

    • #55132
      Anonymous
      Guest

      On a practical basis, humans breed far too slowly for selective breeding. Moreover, phenotype is a non-linear combination of multiple alleles, splicing, post-translational modifications etc so genotyping can typically at best explain ~10% of observed variation. Look at e.g. cancer genotyping studies as a guide.

      In short, except for obvious chromosomal abnormality related diseases, or primitive phenotypes like hair colour, we know far too little to even begin genetic modification of humans.

      • #55183
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Don’t know those details but yeah if empty space is too complicated for humans to understand then I’m sure everything else is, and I don’t want some dumb bitch deciding who lives and who doesn’t.

    • #55133
      Anonymous
      Guest

      make a scientific argument against rape/muder/theft/genocide/child abuse that doesnt include muh morals

      imagine living without morality

    • #55147
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >That’s not science! That’s racism!

    • #55149
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Humans don’t know best about what’s best. You can see that in greedy behavior when actually working together would create more good.

      • #55153
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The only thing "working together" creates is a safety net for all the dead weight at the bottom (non-whites except east asians, neurodiverse scrotebrains, literal scrotebrains, etc.). Same reason communism is complete trash; it’ll keep us forever tied to this God-forsaken world we’ve created with all the scum inhabiting it.

        • #55229
          Anonymous
          Guest

          kek, no. I mean, it’s a side effect, yes, but that’s not the main effect working together has. The current culture shift you’re seeing in the US is not from social behavior. It’s backlash for idiocy and marketing "USA no 1" without anything to show for it.

    • #55154
      Anonymous
      Guest

      lack of biodiversity makes a species more prune to genetic disorders.

      also define what a ‘perfect’ human being would exist as?

      • #55155
        Anonymous
        Guest

        prone*

      • #55157
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Just say that if your income is below a threshold, say 20K per year, then you get castrated.

        • #55160
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Oh you perfect genetic specimen had some pretty bastard ruin your life, time for snip snip

          Oh great. I’d love to further empower corporations and banks to legally castrate whoever they choose via relatively small financial costs.

        • #55164
          Anonymous
          Guest

          So if other people would in any way shape or form be the reason for that then they should be should be castrated because of their involvement?

          How would something like that make any sense other than for psychopats to make sure people get castrated for fun and sport I guess

          • #55166
            Anonymous
            Guest

            You’re right, we should have a 2 step process. If your income is below 20k and you have an IQ below a certain threshold, say 85, THEN you get castrated.

            • #55169
              Anonymous
              Guest

              But isn’t 100 IQ basically a mean of the tests that have been done for a specific population or group so if you castrate them which means you could just remove them altogether I guess seeing as they don’t matter anymore then you get a new group at a low number that you can castrate/shoot/poison or whatever you see fit but then you get a new group, wouldn’t this only continue till there’s very few or pretty much just a handful left..?

              • #55173
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Make it a thing that occurs every year, or five years, or decade or whatever where you sterilize the bottom 10% of the population.

                Sure; at some point the people you’re sterilizing would have been way above the threshold in the past, but that’s the point; to drive continual improvement.

                If in the future we’re sterilizing people who today would have been 120 IQ, I’d say we’d be doing pretty good.

                • #55181
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  I understand what you mean but how would you ever get someone to ever risk someone they care about going through that, wouldn’t that just prompt a massacre due to pushback from people not being ok with people they care about essentially being killed as they wouldn’t be the same person after sterilization and they don’t serve a purpose anymore so might as well kill them in the first place but why couldn’t you just put everyone somewhere like a remote island and leave them to their own devices not needing to kill or sterilize them, let them do their own shit.

                  Why stop at 10% of the bottom why not just put everyone outside the top 5% or something out of commission in one big swoop why wait and take it slow?

                  • #55186
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >essentially being killed as they wouldn’t be the same person after sterilization and they don’t serve a purpose anymore
                    No? They’re still alive, they just can’t breed. Still people.

                    >Why stop at 10% of the bottom why not just put everyone outside the top 5% or something out of commission in one big swoop why wait and take it slow?
                    Accounting for errors, maintaining a large breeding population, easing social change, avoiding inbreeding, etc.

                    • #55187
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      You’d be cool with not being one of those chosen to be sterilized right?

                      • #55189
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yeah, I’ll be long dead by the time the threshold catches up to me anyways.

                    • #55193
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      No they aren’t they lost their main purpose sure they are alive but for what reason, you could just kill it to put it out of it’s misery instead (but relocation would be better than all of that) if not probably to be some sort of slave for you I guess

                      But that doesn’t make sense, avoiding inbreeding is real simple you really don’t need many pairs at all to accomplish that I believe NASA tried to come up with a solution for self sustaining colonies that I believe was supposed to make it through generations if need be.

                      >maintaining a large breeding population

                      But why, the only real reason would be to prevent inbreeding and unnecessary fighting and other potential disputes I guess.

                      Is it all because you are lazy and would rather have some slaves under you?

                      Can’t think of any other reason than that and easing social change?

                      If you sterilize or kill everyone under the top 5% or whatever arbitrary amount you choose then what social change are you talking about if most people no longer exist?

                      Sure they might be alive but they aren’t the essentially the same people with extremely low levels of sex hormones.

                      • #55257
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >but for what reason
                        there is no reason for any of us to be here, there is no purpose and there is no point

          • #55170
            Anonymous
            Guest

            If someone else is able to ruin your life and render you destitute despite your efforts, OR you were already so poor that it took only a little nudge to push you past the threshold, you’re obviously not competent enough in the first place to breed.

            • #55175
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Stop making it illegal to hurt or kill people then

      • #55277
        Anonymous
        Guest

        That’s an argument against globalism and for ethnostates though.

    • #55161
      Anonymous
      Guest

      literally better to just trust evolution we have nowhere near the knowledge required to pursue eugenics in a safe and truly beneficial manner – this is also the real reason why nobody with half a brain advocates it in the worlds power structures, only LULZ, the global capital of scrotebrained people

      • #55165
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This implies evolution can act in a necessary manner given the current state of humanity. Trusting people to themselves is how you get childless geniuses and scrotebrains with 9 children.
        >https://www.pnas.org/content/114/5/E727
        Some way 80 years of "trusting evolution" turned out.

    • #55171
      Anonymous
      Guest

      This is right and you know it.

      • #55178
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Centrists are usually the people who don’t care about politics much and just take the most popular view if needed. That’s the most wise way to live a life, so their IQ is the largest. Of course there are also professional politicians who benefit from their views, but they are a very small minority.

      • #55182
        Anonymous
        Guest

        ftfy

      • #55209
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Heh. Looks like tits.

        • #55220
          Anonymous
          Guest

          you’re the only smart person here.

    • #55174
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because corporations already run a lot of the things in our lives. No way would I allow them to have any hand in breeding the future, even if it was entirely voluntary.

      >Imagine believing that a slow informal white genocide by immigration is in effect but also being okay with giving ethnically diverse multinational corporations government backing to start deciding formal accelerated breeding programs.

      • #55223
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Isn’t that exactly what’s going on now?

        Also let’s just be honest the multiculturalism experiment has failed. There is a population that commits majority of the violent crimes this is something that needs to be seriously discussed.

        • #55227
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >There is a population that commits majority of the violent crimes
          It’s men. And not just the majority, the violent crimes they don’t commit are less than a rounding error. You found your most informative variable, sex.

          • #55231
            Anonymous
            Guest

            And what color are those men mostly?

            • #55260
              Anonymous
              Guest

              human

          • #55259
            Anonymous
            Guest

            woke af

    • #55177
      Anonymous
      Guest

      elite dont want competition, obvious answer

    • #55179
      Anonymous
      Guest

      You may like corporations, but then imagine if the corporation will become too powerful. Then it will get own police and army forces, will be able to put people in prisons, will make own money, will declare sovereignity on some territory and so on. That would be truly dreary!

    • #55185
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It could be abused as a weapon. You’d have to find a way to keep it impartial.

    • #55190
      Anonymous
      Guest

      So-called """eugenics""" is just an excuse for RACISM, that’s why. Anyone advocating for it would just use it as an excuse to ‘exclude’ non-whites from the gene pool.
      Don’t believe me? How about how historically North Carolina used to sterilize people against their will? Guess what people got sterilized the most? It’s happened before, it’ll happen again.

      • #55191
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >So-called """eugenics""" is just an excuse for RACISM

        […]

      • #55203
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >So-called """eugenics""" is just an excuse for RACISM, that’s why. Anyone advocating for it would just use it as an excuse to ‘exclude’ non-whites from the gene pool.
        He asked for reasons against it anon.

      • #55239
        Anonymous
        Guest

        nah white trash rednecks get snipped too

    • #55204
      Anonymous
      Guest

      If it worked China would be doing it.

      • #55205
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >implying anyone knows what china is really up to

      • #55228
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Singapore’s been instituting it quite effectively

        • #55230
          Anonymous
          Guest

          What is their current replacement rate?

    • #55206
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Not your personal philosophers

    • #55211
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Science doesn’t tell me eugenics is “wrong” because whether something is “wrong” or “right” is determined entirely by the domains of morality/ethics. You must make an ethical argument for it.

      The main problem is that murder/sterilization is a violation of people’s rights. If you just want to create genetically modified super humans that will naturally replace normal humans over time, I’m all for it.

      • #55216
        Anonymous
        Guest

        But all ethics doesn’t seem to make sense seeing that murder, poison and sterilization seems to be okay for some reason while modifications of the genome and cloning of humans seems to somehow not be (yes I get that most of the arguments for that seems to be religious even if there are some viable concerns other than that) despite it likely going on right now and will happen either way in time plus isn’t modifications of the genome what selective breeding is and cloning in a sense what actual breeding is (not really but still)..?

    • #55221
      Anonymous
      Guest

      muh lets discard morals and live in anarchy because i’m an edgeteen who can’t get laid

      • #55226
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Let’s hold back the human race because feelings

      • #55240
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Yes.

    • #55232
      Anonymous
      Guest

      many features that one might deem "unfavorable" are actually favorable if you look at the bigger picture. genetic diversity is extremely important for survival of a species and you can’t build the entire human species on the basis of benefit to civilizations when said civilizations are built on thin ice and might collapse and disappear at any moment.
      violence, fear, greed, etc are among the many "unfavorable" behavioral features and height, skin color, muscle size, unattractiveness are among the many "unfavorable" behavioral features.
      this kind of selection already happens but there is a difference when it’s happening because of the randomness of humans and systematically selecting on a large scale.
      if it works don’t fix it

      • #55234
        Anonymous
        Guest

        What about when putting someone in prison, in effect temporarily keeping them out of the gene pool? Is that a kind of systematic selection that you’re against? Does it work and not need fixing? In a way it’s pretty analogous to common interpretation of a eugenics program, strengths and weaknesses alike.
        But what I’m surmising from your points of genetic diversity (which can be interpreted as "anything goes"), your disillusionment with the civilization foundations, and your apparent distrust of the integrity of certain societal systems, is that basically the best we could/should settle for is the genetic equivalent of anarchy? Rolling with that would bring up the usual suspect arguments of "what do you do when a group of people team up", genetically, i.e. engage in eugenics.
        Final question is that eugenics can be seen as another evolutionary strategy; humans are a part of nature after all. Is that kind of diversity detrimental (to you or humans in general) on it’s own or how big and encompassing does it have to get before you think it is?

        • #55235
          Anonymous
          Guest

          modern society isn’t the most correct on many things and everyone can agree on that, besides a prison sentence for anything other than murder (the maximum sentence) isn’t going to stop a person from breeding.
          genetic diversity isn’t ambiguous or random or anything goes. when a species has a wide range of heights, a wide range of bodily compositions, a wide range of skin shades, etc it’s more likely to survive extreme climate changes (actual climate changes not meme 1 grade Celsius hotter). there are quantitative ambiguous features like height and clear qualitative features like a genetic disorder. genetic biodiversity is about those quantitative ambiguous features not the qualitative features. a scrotebrain or a cripple aren’t bio diverse. the "end goal" of most eugenicists is not only ending genetic diseases (which is good) but also shifting those quantitative features and making the normal distribution of said features much narrower.
          if you disagree with me that modern civilization and society you should read more about human history and history of earth, modern civilization has only existed for 10 000 years and it has been unstable to say the least for the most part. just because we are now living in relative calm and peace doesn’t mean it will last forever. you can’t build humans to live in this environment when its entire existence is built on thin ice. most populations in the world even first world ones rely solely on rain for their crops.
          when you say eugenics i think of sterilization, the treatment of human sperm the same way bull and stead sperm is treated, etc. this a lot more extreme than whatever you’d call the selection mode that exists today. the "end goal" of most eugenicists is a tall, strong, "beautiful", smart, fair skinned, "alpha", etc man which might not work together but is great for modern society if it did, but not great for anything else. eugenics for single allele disorders is ok and has no problem

    • #55237
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Can we all just admit if Black People were bred/sterilized out of existence it would be a net positive? I’m absolutely sick of pussyfooting around this.

      • #55241
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Anon you’re just angry about the fact that you can’t compete sexually. Genocide of the competition won’t stop you from being an incel

        • #55242
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Anon you’re just angry about the fact that you can’t compete sexually.
          No, I’m completely serious that society would be a net positive, especially for Americans, if they just sterilized any black people on their countries.
          I genuinely can’t think of a single thing that would be a negative if this were implemented, can you?

          >Genocide of the competition won’t stop you from being an incel
          Aschually, it’s quite reasonable to assume that incels of my race would have better access to sex if competition for "scarce resources" was reduced.

          • #55243
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >I genuinely can’t think of a single thing that would be a negative if this were implemented, can you?
            Not him but I can, filtering out schizos like you who let people live rent free in your head so long that you can’t function normally.

            • #55244
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >essentially "hurr you schizo"
              I’m being serious anon, name a metric.
              I struggled for about a year to come up for some defense of "Poc" before I just gave up trying to defend their scroteness.

              • #55246
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >essentially "hurr you schizo"
                Yes, you are a schizo. Did you some how think these people managed to survive for thousands of years on sheer dumb luck alone? Did you think the traits they developed was some weird prank pulled by nature to troll you in the current life as a inconvenience?

                >I’m being serious anon, name a metric
                Which metric anon? Genetic survival or communal utility? You think their dark skin, kinky hair, body frame and sickle cell trait exist for show or pure vanity? Do you think the lists of black academics and artists on websites like wikipedia are some kind of constructed conspiracy? If so why not have an extensive list for Aboriginal Australians or Inuit people too? Why only them and not others?

                >I struggled for about a year to come up for some defense of "Poc" before I just gave up trying to defend their scroteness.
                More you’ve struggled for 15 seconds before you posted some knee jerk reaction in a eugenics thread. One that’s already established that the utility of traits that seem useless or useful now would not be in the same position a in a different time period. Also re-read your own statement, you keep mentioning "defense" as if they need to justify their continual existence when they don’t. By that logic 90% of the global population shouldn’t exist because they can’t readily justify it or prove meaningful contributions including posters in this very thread.

                Individuals like you are what people were trying to avoid in threads like this. Because you hinder the conversation by weighing it down with blanket assertions. This is the reason why eugenics gets a bad rap even though the methodology behind most eugenics ideas are crude compared to genetic engineering.

                • #55266
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >Yes, you are a schizo.
                  How? Because I don’t like black people? That I acknowledge that they’re a net negative for society, particularly American society? Seems like you’re just seething someone doesn’t like scrotes lol.

                  >Did you some how think these people managed to survive for thousands of years on sheer dumb luck alone?
                  I believe they evolved to match their environment.

                  >Which metric anon?
                  >Genetic survival
                  What, you mean the MVP? scrotes going extinct wouldn’t bring it anywhere near close to below it.

                  >or communal utility?
                  lmao check out the hood if you want to see their "utility" to the community.

                  >You think their dark skin, kinky hair, body frame and sickle cell trait exist for show or pure vanity?
                  I think it’s a part of their phenotype.

                  >Do you think the lists of black academics and artists on websites like wikipedia are some kind of constructed conspiracy?
                  lul wut?

                  >If so why not have an extensive list for Aboriginal Australians…
                  Because abos are a bit too busy huffing petrol and sleeping on the road, and the Inuit aren’t in any position to contribute to society.
                  scrotes, especially American scrotes, are.

                  >More you’ve struggled for 15 seconds before you posted…
                  Nah, I genuinely tried to hold onto my "everybody is equal!!!!" programming from my childhood years, it just gets worn down over time.

                  >One that’s already established that the utility of traits that seem useless…
                  Oh sure, stick a few in a an enclosed area somewhere just to have that stock exist, I can get behind that.

                  > Also re-read your own statement, you keep mentioning "defense" as if they need to justify their continual existe…
                  Could’ve fooled me from all the talk about how we must all (or rather our children must all) become diversified mystery meat.

                  >By that logic 90% of the global population shouldn’t exist because they can’t readily justify it or prove meaningful contributions including posters…
                  Net positive tax contribution for one.

                  cont.

    • #55238
      Anonymous
      Guest

      We are doing this shit constantly and you demand more

    • #55245
      Anonymous
      Guest

      How about you make a scientific argument FOR eugenics that doesnt include muh morals.
      Why do I have to justify not taking every random position that pops into some shizos head?

    • #55247
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Make a scientific argument for not wiping life off of this planet that doesn’t include muh morals.

      Your OP is scrotebrained because you need an assumptive world view, with at least some constructed values, I.e morals, to give impetus to any choice

    • #55248
      Anonymous
      Guest

      We don’t know all the traits and could potentially lose important genetic stock by interfering. Imagine we wipe out blacks and 20 years down the line, oops, blacks had a gene we need.

      • #55249
        Anonymous
        Guest

        You do know we’ve done/are doing full genome sequencing right now and besides some rare mutations which we will eventually record we probably already know the sequence for that gene and can just recreate it and implement it

    • #55250
      Anonymous
      Guest

      A good compromise for all this talk of reducing the genetic diversity would be to not implement it on a global scale and only through either nation scale or simply for the "elites" this way we have the benefits of greater humanity while retaining the "backup" for any major genetic fuckup which is actually also unlikely to occur as any genes we need are likely to be already known and stored and can be recreated at will

    • #55251
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Being a moralscrote is a prerequisite for being a eugenicist.

    • #55252
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Eugenics is to society, what communism is to the economy. Restricting the free market of breeding by idealistic rules that never worked in practice.

    • #55256
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >so far humans have lived fine without eugenics
      >clearly we don’t need it

    • #55258
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Make a scientific argument against torturing and raping toddlers that doesnt include muh morals
      freaking idiot, Science deals with "is" questions not "ought" questions.
      In case you didn’t get the memo, you cannot derive an ought from an is.
      science makes descriptive statements, not normative ones.

      • #55264
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Make a scientific argument for eugenics that doesnt include muh morals

        Woke af Hume-poster

    • #55261
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Everyone will converge to a single ideal destroying diversity. This will expose everyone to the same risks and eventually you go extinct

      • #55262
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The elites have this idea for everyone to blend up and become this brown mudcattle slave class but as you say you lose all real diversity so the system will just become increasingly fragile and monotone. Why are the elites complete scrotebrains?

    • #55263
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Humans are too flawed. There will always be a cost of playing God down the line.

    • #55265
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I hope you guys realize that unfettered female selection means that eugenics is already well in progress (and that’s a good thing)

    • #55272
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Make a scientific argument against eugenics that doesnt include muh morals

      Science doesn’t make prescriptive claims, any arguments for or against eugenics are fundamentally moral arguments

    • #55284
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The point of natural selection is that it’s natural. Therefore the current evolved population has their gene distribution decided indirectly by the current state of things. Eugenics is just unnatural selection. Essentially, you are inventing problems that need to be solved through invented means. The "optimal" society that a eugenicist seeks is one that is optimized for a world that does not exist.

      • #55286
        Anonymous
        Guest

        https://i.imgur.com/dzNyKMV.gif

        >You can’t utilize knowledge to overcome natural phenomena

        • #55319
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >overcome
          Overcoming what, exactly? There is no rule that says dumb people are unfit to survive. If intelligence was so necessary all the dummies would have been naturally selected out eons ago. Being a scrotebrain is not a dealbreaker for basically all living organisms.

    • #55292
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Obsolete technology that gets half assed results. Better to double down on in vitro gene editing.

    • #55293
      Anonymous
      Guest

      you would greatly reduce genetic diversity, which is a massive strength in populations.

      • #55294
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Only it terms of susceptibility to disease and inbreeding, the second of which can be avoided if sufficient caution is taken.

      • #55295
        Anonymous
        Guest

        How would Eugenics reduce diversity?

        If anything, all the low IQ people of populations could be killed off to make space for importing high IQ people from other populations. Every dollar spent on supporting scrotebrained southern whites can go towards infrastructure and businesses to hire high IQ syrians or something. We could harvest all the intelligent people from 3rd worlds more than we are currently.

    • #55296
      El ArcĂłn
      Guest

      Whose opinion should you use to say what genes should be preserved and what is their opinion woke af on other than their personal preferences and (maybe) a few decades of genetic study vs billions of years of nature obviously doing its own sufficient eugenics protocols?

    • #55299
      Anonymous
      Guest

      We haven’t perfected it
      It needs to be usable at all.
      Parents need to know their options.
      Most techniques like scanning a fetus for any defects are commonly used alongside testing to generic conditions.

      Eugenics isn’t super dead but it’s not what it used to be in the past were ethical issues were rampant.

      • #55300
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I can’t argue against it but we need to make the system more equitable. However that’s hard to slap a profit motive to in an attempt to make money.

        • #55302
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >system more equitable.
          Fuck your equity.

          The goal is equality. Once the tyrants start shifting it to equity it means they just want CASH.

          • #55306
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Equality is a meme until people are actually equal in ability

            • #55326
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Of course it’s a meme. A shared concept that revolves around a theme. Thank you freaking Dawkins.
              Of course it’s one of those ideals we strive for but will never perfectly achieve.
              Of course there will still be rich and poor, not everyone is made of the same stuff.

              But you’re one of those fuckwits that confuses equality of opportunity, equality in the eyes of the law, equality in treatment and respect with the only god-damned thing you care about: CASH. You just want other people’s cash. That’s all you want. Fuck you and your greedy little pocket-picking claws. If I am literally better than you, then I deserve to have more than you. Because I work for it and provide more than you. If that upsets you, use it as encouragement to BE BETTER rather than stealing other people’s shit, you little shit-thief.

      • #55303
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >We haven’t perfected it
        uuuuuuuh, nothing in biology is perfect. We still eat and shit and have surgeries despite them not being perfect.

        >It needs to be usable at all.
        The fuck? IQ is highly heritable. About 60-80%. We studied that nature vs nurture thing. We can identify where the split is.
        And we can simply abort any downs kids. Easy peasy. A whole hell of a lot of people already do that, so… it’s already in use. It makes life easier and society more efficient, but since downs kids don’t reproduce, there’s really no long-term gains. They were already dead-ends.

    • #55301
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The sociological backlash of all the "undesirables" burning down the nation, and all the intelligent desirables helping them because they don’t want to be burned.

      The effects take generations to see. Education is way faster and cheaper.

      All that is against BLATANT eugenics. Soft subtle eugenics doesn’t cause the city to get burned. That is: Making abortions and birth control freely available to people who we REALLY don’t want to breed. The exceptions who do it anyway and have a shitty life for them and their kids are few enough not to matter. Getting the smarties to breed is a tougher trick.

    • #55304
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Here’s how it’s going to go down.

      Invitro genetic “treatments” are going to become more and more prevalent. Parents don’t want their kids to have a “disease” now do they? So, eventually that scrotebrain gene present in scrotes will be relabeled as something else, a genetic disorder. And of course the cure is absolutely a eugenic solution because what parent wants their kid to be stupid? It won’t be all at once or even called out for what it is, just some insidious shit the medical industrial complex foists upon us.

    • #55305
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Eugenics to be applied requires the identification of preferred characteristics within individuals of a population.

      The preference of some qualities over others cannot be grounded on scientific arguments (scientifically speaking we are particles colliding without purpose, from that premise it’s impossible to arrive at a conclusion of some properties being better than others for individuals: that would require a definition of what "better" is, which cannot be obtained purely through scientific arguments).

      Therefore your question is moot. There is no scientific argument against eugenics because science cannot make a scientific argument in favor or against any position without an underlying value/moral system.

      • #55307
        Anonymous
        Guest

        That’s blatantly false as you need only to observe a trait within a population that performs better at xyz function and then find if it’s genetic in nature and then test the children with it if they perform better and you have an observable trait that performs better at xyz

    • #55308
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why invest in a superman when making a machine god as your successor is an option?

    • #55309
      Anonymous
      Guest

      1. we’re too stupid to override natural selection
      2. you’re racist for posting shit like this here

      • #55310
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >2. you’re racist for posting shit like this here
        Are you implying that certain races would have largely undesirable traits and eugenics would be a negative thing for them population wise?

    • #55316
      Anonymous
      Guest

      People select best genes they can breed with if they breed voluntary. They even fight for them.

      They select towards what their want, therefore selection being left on themselves is greatest form of democracy we can have.

      It’s even biggest form in fascism as being united in our freedom.

      What in eugenics would you breed towards? Intelligence? That is bullshit and current genetics suffer insufficient educational system.

      You can educate variates of genetics much more better. Humans are not born or breed into something, but educated into it.

      Like I don’t really don’t know what you need more, we have engeneered phone with eternal baterry lifetime(lifecycle of phone time), which is capable of transfering video on edge of majority’s recognition around the world.

      We landed the moon.

      We have already going on antigravity research that produced antigravity.

      We’ve got artificial gravity which is not woke af on the spinning hall.

      We’ve got warp almost ready to test.

      What you want more the fuck?

      Bigger tits and dick? GMO is enough for that and you don’t need selectively breed anybody.

      CRISPR can do in minutes what you can do in generations.

      Please consider suicide and take your thinking about humanity with yourself to hell, where you belong.

      All the way with your outlawed outdated outscoped degenerative statistical thinking.

      • #55317
        Anonymous
        Guest

        No intelligence cause myopia because people are possible to tell psychologist pattern instead of how real world look like.

    • #55318
      Anonymous
      Guest

      You restrict the genetic pool making most people inbred

    • #55321
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Your request cannot be satisfied in principle, as science is fundamentally an amoral pursuit. It can only help us in figuring out how to do smth, but it cannot dictate what we should do.

Viewing 72 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.