What's your take on eugenics?
Would it be immoral to implement some form of eugenics in society?
I initially asked this on Yahoo Answers and got low-tier responses.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160517000952AAHYTgG
If you want a quick 10 points
support it. Good luck op on making this thread. I've made multiple eugenics threads and I can barely get any responses.
It's not even up for discussion. We should have been employing eugenics a long fucking time ago. We've used it for agriculture. We've used it animal domestication. We've used it for livestock. It's blindingly obvious how effective it is.
I don't think anyone can imagine where human potential reaches it's limit under a eugenics program.
The only way I could see it being brought before and accepted by the population though is by implementing a positive eugenics whereby favorable stock are permitted to breed MORE than unfavorable stock rather than a negative eugenics where we kill the shitty people.
The time for this type of policy is prime because everyone is concerned about overpopulation whether the problem actually exists or not.
Hopefully these useless democracies will crumble soon and we will have leaders in place to institute programs like these and take humanity to its next evolutionary phase.
>>74317331
Support it. If I'm going to bring a soul into this world then I have an obligation to give it the best possible body to run in during its life.
The real assholes are the ones who bring a soul into the world in order to get an increase in welfare or not abort a retard.
>>74320180
I'd give that body a run in desu senpai.
>>74317331
What's wrong with voluntary genetic manipulation of offspring? Absolutely nothing.
>>74317331
Government run eugenics? No, because that shit can turn in a terrible direction really fast.
Voluntary consumer-level eugenics, Gattaca-style? Fuck yes. It is immoral NOT to fix easily preventable genetic deficiencies in your offspring.
>>74317331
this is an interesting question, for there is positive and negitive eugenics, and while I would support both, I can see that people would find negative eugenics rather unsavory.
>>74317331
>What's your take on eugenics?
Inefficient. Targeting a particular trait with eugenics impacts a multitude of other traits that are impossible to predict before the experiment is already committed to the chosen path.
Why try to get the result we want by rolling dice over and over when we can just turn over each die manually.
Genetic engineering is the future.
>>74317331
It's absolutely essential for the long term survival of any democracy.
>>74320359
The problem, it's not readily available. Even if it were presently available on the marketplace, It would be cheaper to get an abortion.
>>74317331
Bribe people with bad genes to not reproduce/get sterilized, and reward people with good genes to reproduce/donate gametes
It doesn't opress anyone
>>74320517
the problem with that is that we do not know how to fix genetic deficiencies at the genetic level, the only tools we have at this point is selective reproduction, and the said reproduction has to be monitored by a government lest it not be effective.
>>74317331
Eugenics is going on as we speak. Many western governments provide generous benefits to poor people who have children. This encourages poor people to have children while discouraging the middle class from having children.
>>74320976
I see this as the most viable option though the second would be harder simply because people with desirable traits would be at the upper echelons of society and would be less susceptible to monetary incentives.
>>74317331
Massively support it. Hell, go on OKC a bunch of women support it.
Eugenics on nigs would have incredible benefits to America.
Literally any nog caught committing a crime should be sterilized.
IMMEDIATE PAYOFF.
>>74321487
HOLY SHIT, THIS.
We should sterilize criminals.
Ah, Aiden Layne... I'd know her tits anywhere.
>>74321748
You're alright.
>>74317331
It's irrelevant in traditional society since most religious orders contain eugenic principles. The general confusion of modernity is no cause for rash action to be honest.
>>74317331
i am for negative eugenics. That's the view that poor people or unfit shouldn't have children. I am not for positive eugenics which is the view that people with good genes should breed.
>>74317331
Planned Parenthood already kills millions of nigs
Give up my advantage over retards because I won the genetic lottery? No thanks.
>>74317331
I'm seeing a few parallels between eugenics and this recent 'trans' business. People are going to be ashamed in not so much time.
You can start by sterilizing every 4chan user.
Being here is proof that you're not fit to breed
>>74323399
becasue the elite are pushing for transhumanism, man becoming as God.
y'all are being tricked by Satan with this technological carrot on a stick
>>74321015
This is disgenics not eugenics.
>>74317331
There's no reason for eugenics when we have genetic engineering. It's just completely outdated.
Even ignoring social/moral issues, it's very primitive and can easily result in making rare genetic disorders common by decreasing overall genetic diversity.
>>74317331
>What's your take on eugenics?
not as good as direct genetic modification.
also it tends to rely on visual characteristics rather than ones that actually matter.
>>74317331
I'm a geneticist and I don't support eugenics because it's really fucking dumb from an evolutionary standpoint.
Humans suck at engineering animal species, and there's still so much we don't understand about the human genome that it simply wouldn't be safe for our species as a whole. We still have no idea what many genes even do.
I believe society should create incentives for necessary traits, especially if those traits are not sexually selective, like intelligence, in which most women actually avoid intelligent men either due to their unrelateability or simply out of fear they can't control an intelligent man.
The alternative really is idiocracy and is our destiny if the current post-modernist mindset of the media, politicians and university professors isn't outwardly proven to be false.
>>74323172
>i am for negative eugenics. That's the view that poor people or unfit shouldn't have children. I am not for positive eugenics which is the view that people with good genes should breed.
Why?
>>74321603
>>74321487
>Sterilize criminals
We tried this in Ohio in the 1930's I believe. Prisoners rioted within 3 months of the bill being passed.
>>74324307
Well then shoot them. They shouldn't have comitted any crime to begin with.
>>74317331
A lot of people are saying "well if all these jobs are going to be automated in the future then we better have guaranteed income".
But why should society give that out and get nothing in return? Wouldn't it be better to pay people not to have children, so there are fewer problems later, and less "guaranteed income" to give out later? Why should you benefit from automation while making things harder on the automators?
(The answer the left will give, I think, is "we are doing something for you - we are not coming at you with axes and burning your house down, that's what we're doing.")
>>74317331
We have eugenics in western society. It usually falls under the umbrellas of "genetic counseling" or "family planning." It's a good thing.
What isn't a good thing is some autist getting control of a police state and enforcing restrictions on reproduction for the people he doesn't like.
Can we genetically modify women to have less mouths and more tits?
>>74320775
>Genetic engineering is the future.
fugg this scares the shit out of me
>>74323704
Wouldn't you say, though, that frequent application of the death penalty in early civilization helped to foster a gene pool that had lower time preference and could function toward longer-term goals?
>>74319193
thats because your a faggot.
>>74321748
Before I spend time searching, do you know if she's done any solo masturbation or lesbian videos? I don't really get off by watching other dudes fucking.
>>74324747
Says the abbo.
if you believe in eugenics, you should practice it yourself, in order to set an example for others to follow.
Use the sperm of a man who is superior to you, when you have a family. This is a simple way to apply eugenics without any controversy.
>>74324307
Really?
BASED Ohio!
80 years? Maybe its time....
>>74324715
But anon, mouths are for sucking.
It's vocal cords they need to lose.
The obvious issue is who gets to decide the qualifications for eugenics.
Though if it were up to me any of the following 4 things would disqualify you:
1 IQ under the national average
2 Having a high risk of giving your child a congenital disorder
3 If you're convicted of a felony then no child for you
4 If you can't afford the child (i.e. you are on welfare) then you can't have it to prevent using children as gibs
Any other qualifications are unneeded. That said, ANY kind of eugenics being instituted would bring a civil war quicker than anything.
>>74320359
I disagree. If your genetic changes turn out to cause problems later in life, you've submitted your child to that. I'm all for testing that shit, but you can't just go allowing it for just anyone. It would literally take generations before we know whether it's safe.
>>74324725
That assumes that they were incapable of fostering children prior to being executed. It also doesn't eradicate the genes of the executed persons parents, brothers, etc. so they're still within the gene pool.
It's also an untestable hypothesis.
>>74323767
I think the mating habits of the r-selected and the K-selected are very different. I'd imagine a K-selected woman would appreciate an intelligent man so long as he's not an aspie. r-selected whores will just fuck any chad that walks near them though.
We need to treat stupidity like a disease that needs to be wiped out, like polio.
Genius sperm banks are the cure.
>>74325063
The reason it ultimately ended up getting binned was because women were the ones who often ended up getting sterilized. Not for actual crimes mind you, but for things like "being overly promiscuous" or "rebellious" whereas men who committed the same "crimes" were waved of those charges. The judges argued it was in man's blood to do those things, but not in a healthy woman's. We could probably bring it back if we only applied it to repeat offenders.
I think only midgets should be allowed to breed.
>>74324804
Yeah, she has one lesbian one (with her "Doctor") and that's it.
If the gov was open about it then yes, it could be moral. But if the gov is doing it in secret then it is entirely immoral in every way and the people doing it should be put in a gas chamber.
100% serious
sweden or norway did this back 100 years ago, worked out well.
usa did it to make niggers stronger slaves
I"m all for it. Except Merkel and the Jews are trying to eradicate the white race by reverse eugenics.
>>74321015
That would be disgenics
>>74319978
you do know that with the current government we would have affirmative action even for that right?
the selection would be extremely biased, they want cattle, not thinking humans
>Though if it were up to me any of the following >4 things would disqualify you:
>1 IQ under the national average
Christ, I think this is the danger of eugenics. Anyone with an IQ under 100 can't breed? 50% of Europeans can't breed? There are lots of great citizens and hard working people in the lower IQs. You are writing them off to your own detriment.
If you want to have an IQ barrier for negative eugenics, at least make it 60 or something. People who simply can't support their own offspring.
>>74317331
The concept of eugenics is becoming outdated with advances in Genetics. Soon we will be able to completely shape human physiology and psychology from the fetal stage. Selective breeding will be unnecessary
>>74317331
DAYUMN where can a nigga find that video to jack off to?
>>74324985
Enjoy your Clinton presidency
>>74320664
do you mean promoting/disincentivising as positive and enforcement as negative?
Basically our governments are already doing eugenics. They're promoting the proliferation of certain genes over others through the means of child support and immigration.
Personally I'd support sterilization of mentally retarded people and certain types of criminals (pedophiles, rapists and people who have used extensive violence against their children).
I might also support people having to sign a contract they're willing to be sterilized in exchange for welfare benefits (i.e. paying people too stupid to make it to not have children)
>>74325531
aren't those two brown people on the right just regular asians?
>>74325624
It's Aidan Layne. One of her earlier videos.
>>74325091
what am I going to do with tits in her throat
wait
theres probably a fetish for this
>>74325531
what kind of a sick fuck thought putting an asian man next to white midgets would be a funny joke?
>>74325730
thanks dude. about to beat off real quick.
>>74325130
>1 IQ under the national average
You'd lose your whole population in three generations.
>>74325238
I don't believe r and k selection is as valid as you believe it to be for societies we can essentially engineer. Our lives are so artificial and synthetic, expecting that level of naturalism is unrealistic. It's irrational.
I believe it goes deeper, with smart boys in Disney movies framed as manlets that are either frail or fat. Don't even get me started on how the American media portrays high brow art/culture like classical. Only intelligent girls are ever excused from this anti-intellectual stereotype, despite numerous childhood psychology studies proving the absolute obvious: That a boy can be academic despite his physical characteristics and even improves amongst athletic boy. That it's all too common for a girl to pursue academia to compensate for her perceived shortcomings, usually either obesity or ugliness.
If it's not obvious, this society really is engineered against intelligent men. On the surface it seems as if it's actually a difficulty modification, but with a more critical approach it is provably dysgenic.
Women are told to avoid intelligent white men and they simply shut up and do what they're told. No questioning.
>>74325781
It will be a vid where she has short hair with bangs in the preview.
>>74317331
Yeah, let's have a eugenics program so the kike controlled governments can systematically erase the existence of the white race and only allow niggers and towel heads to reproduce. Amazing idea guys.
>>74325704
positive is providing conditions under which people with desirable traits, produce more offspring (does not matter to what extent)
negative is providing conditions under which people with undesirable traits produce less offspring(does not matter to what extent).
this is the dictionary definition of the terms
I would support those things to, though you have to understand that most of the population would not support such measures.
